Town of North Hempstead v. Sea Crest Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of North Hempstead v. Sea Crest Construction Corp.

99 A.D.2d 777, 471 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17161

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 777 (Town of North Hempstead v. Sea Crest Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of North Hempstead v. Sea Crest Construction Corp., 99 A.D.2d 777, 471 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a chattel and money damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered July 13, 1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an ex parte order of seizure and denied defendants’ cross motion to vacate the order. Order affirmed, with costs. Whatever the deficiencies in the affidavit supporting the order of seizure, the Town of North Hempstead sustained its burden of proof on its motion for confirmation, and there is no basis for vacatur of the order of seizure at this time. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover a chattel and money damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered July 13, 1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an ex parte order of seizure and denied defendants’ cross motion to vacate the order. Order affirmed, with costs. Whatever the deficiencies in the affidavit supporting the order of seizure, the Town of North Hempstead sustained its burden of proof on its motion for confirmation, and there is no basis for vacatur of the order of seizure at this time. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 777, 471 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-north-hempstead-v-sea-crest-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1984.